On 20.02.23 16:17, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I think we should just do it and not care about what breaks. There has
> never been any guarantee about these.
>
>
> I'm going to toss a -1 into the ring but if this does go through a
> strong request that it be disabled via a GUC. The ugliness of that
> option is why we shouldn't do this.
>
> Defacto reality is still a reality we are on the hook for.
>
> I too find the legacy design choice to be annoying but not so much that
> changing it seems like a good idea.
Well, a small backward compatibility GUC might not be too cumbersome.
